Jeffery Scott v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-CP-01549-COA
JEFFERY SCOTT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
08/30/2000
HON. LAMAR PICKARD
COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PRO SE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN
ALEXANDER MARTIN
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
AFFIRMED - 07/24/2001
8/14/2001
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., THOMAS, AND IRVING, JJ.
SOUTHWICK, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Jeffery Scott was found guilty of aggravated assault and attempted armed robbery by a Copiah County
Circuit Court jury. Almost four years later, Scott sought post-conviction relief. The circuit court dismissed
the petition finding that it was time barred. We agree and affirm.
DISCUSSION
¶2. On July 25, 1996, Scott was convicted of aggravated assault and attempted armed robbery. He was
sentenced on August 9, 1996. More than three years later, in May of 2000, Scott filed a pro se petition for
post-conviction relief. Scott argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney
failed to perfect a direct appeal. He argues that protection of his constitutional rights requires that the time
bar applied by the circuit court be ignored.
¶3. The time limitation in issue here is established in the post-conviction relief statutes themselves. When no
appeal from the conviction was taken, relief must be sought within three years from the date that the time for
taking an appeal expired. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2000). The statute waives the time bar
when the supreme court of this state or of the United States has handed down a decision that would have
changed the outcome of the case, when new and nearly conclusive exculpatory evidence is presented that
had not been reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, or when the argument is that the sentence has
expired or that probation or parole has been improperly revoked. Id.
¶4. Scott makes none of the necessary allegations for exemption from the statute of limitations. He argues
that additional exemptions must be created to protect his fundamental constitutional right to effective
counsel. It is true that an exception to procedural bars may be found if a fundamental constitutional right
would otherwise be denied. Luckett v. State, 582 So. 2d 428, 430 (Miss.1991). Even so, a mere claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel is not enough to overcome the statute of limitations for filing a post
conviction relief petition. Bevill v. State, 669 So. 2d 14, 17 (Miss. 1996). See also Cole v. State, 608
So. 2d 1313, 1319-20 (Miss. 1992) ("a state may attach reasonable time limitations to the assertion of
federal constitutional rights").
¶5. We find no error in the denial of relief.
¶6. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE TAXED TO
COPIAH COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING, P.J., PAYNE, BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS
AND CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
